Merged How Trump has Emboldened Bigots, Racists and Nazis

[Stacko]

The only thing this guy regrets is getting caught and it looks like he's being let off the hook.

 

[ddt]

This reminds me of the sort of atheists that thinks fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are more truly Christian/Muslim than their more liberal co-religionists. Even if true, all it does is much the liberal factions more towards the fundies.

Where do you find this sort of atheist ?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind. Geert Wilders too.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Trump's election has certainly empowered the bigots on the left.

You got us. We hate racists, nazis and bigots.

Yeah, and it at least felt like we were more "empowered" before last November, didn't it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The only thing this guy regrets is getting caught and it looks like he's being let off the hook.

That's some awesome reporting...

But in one Washington County town, some say one fan’s response may have crossed the line.

Paul Smith, the chief of Cecil Volunteer Fire Station #2, posted a derogatory response on Facebook, which directed a racial slur at Steelers’ head coach Mike Tomlin.

In the post, Smith wrote: “Tomlin just added himself to the list of no good N*****s. Yes I said it.”


Really WTF MAY have crossed the line ?

 

[Imhotep]

I don't know, I think the first step to progressing as a nation is to have everyone come out and just be honest about their attitudes and political beliefs. That sets the stage for great thinkers to come along and try to resolve the disparate and seemingly incompatible tenets of each side. Obviously the racism won't survive that process but it still needs to be represented on the way in.

 

[Imhotep]

Also, it's interesting to find parallels between Trump and Caligula. Will Trump be followed up by a Claudius type figure?

 

[Belz...]

Also, it's interesting to find parallels between Trump and Caligula.

I wonder if he'll name his hair senator.

 

[applecorped]

As the above quotes show, Trump certainly has emboldened some to cast off the veil. Whereas before they may have at least pretended to be impartial, now it's just full-on partisan false equivalency.

 

[theprestige]

I did. You responded to Turtle's post about the topic, which is about how Trump emboldens racists.

I responded specifically to the point Turtle raised about people embracing white supremacy.

At no point did you or him indicate that you were talking about anything else.

I indicated what I was talking about first by quoting it, and second by using the same terminology used in the quote in my reply to the quoted passage. What else would you have had me do to indicate what I was talking about?

You wouldn't be trying to avoid admitting to making a mistake, would you?

I'm not sure what mistake I could possibly have made. Here's what Turtle said:

Sure the issue is how Trump has effected the beliefs and actions of the white supremacists. And has his rhetoric shifted people to embrace white supremacy who hadn't thought about it in the past.

Turtle talked about people embracing white supremacy due to Trump's rhetoric. I asked specifically about that. The only way I could be mistaken is if Turtle hadn't actually brought it up. But he did, so I'm not.

 

[Belz...]

I responded specifically to the point Turtle raised about people embracing white supremacy.

Every time I read "Turtle" now I see Mitch McConnell's face. I'd like to apologise to ponderingturtle for associating them!

I indicated what I was talking about first by quoting it, and second by using the same terminology used in the quote in my reply to the quoted passage. What else would you have had me do to indicate what I was talking about?

You weren't talking about emboldening them, then? What do you mean? If you were, I was responding to that. If you weren't, then what?

 

[theprestige]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/14/us/airbnb-host-fine-asian-comment/index.html

I suppose this lady was just making this story up. Because the bigots, according to those on the right who should know, have not been emboldened by Trump. No. Not at all.

It's hard to take your concern seriously when all you bring is sarcasm. It gives the impression you don't even take it seriously yourself.

Anyway, your argument is both a non sequitur and contrafactual. And "those on the right" is a pretty weaselly phrasing. You were having a conversation with other members here. You don't need to appeal to an anonymous other group, "those on the right". You can actually address the claims and arguments made by the members involved in the conversation. Assuming any of them have actually said what you're claiming. So c'mon: Put aside the sarcasm and the elisions, and have at it.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I don't know, I think the first step to progressing as a nation is to have everyone come out and just be honest about their attitudes and political beliefs. That sets the stage for great thinkers to come along and try to resolve the disparate and seemingly incompatible tenets of each side. Obviously the racism won't survive that process but it still needs to be represented on the way in.

I thought we went through that process in the 60s, but the backlash seems to have set the stage for a demagogue. Maybe it takes a few cycles.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know, I think the first step to progressing as a nation is to have everyone come out and just be honest about their attitudes and political beliefs. That sets the stage for great thinkers to come along and try to resolve the disparate and seemingly incompatible tenets of each side. Obviously the racism won't survive that process but it still needs to be represented on the way in.

That's kind of how I feel, too.

 

[theprestige]

You weren't talking about emboldening them, then? What do you mean? If you were, I was responding to that. If you weren't, then what?

In this post, ponderingturtle says that Trump's rhetoric has shifted people to embrace white supremacy. I quoted the post. I even used the forum's built-in quote feature that provides a link back to the original so that no context is lost. I responded to the things said in that post, explicitly using the same terminology in my reply as used in the post I was replying to. Go back and re-read my posts, and let me know what I could possibly have done to make it any clearer what I was talking about.

 

[Imhotep]

That's kind of how I feel, too.

Thanks. There was an article in Smithsonian that followed along these lines.

 

[Belz...]

In this post, ponderingturtle says that Trump's rhetoric has shifted people to embrace white supremacy. I quoted the post. I even used the forum's built-in quote feature that provides a link back to the original so that no context is lost. I responded to the things said in that post, explicitly using the same terminology in my reply as used in the post I was replying to. Go back and re-read my posts, and let me know what I could possibly have done to make it any clearer what I was talking about.

Could you answer my question directly and clearly, please?

 

[theprestige]

Could you answer my question directly and clearly, please?

Jesus wept.

In this post, ponderingturtle says that Trump's rhetoric has shifted people to embrace white supremacy. I quoted the post. I even used the forum's built-in quote feature that provides a link back to the original so that no context is lost. I responded to the things said in that post, explicitly using the same terminology in my reply as used in the post I was replying to. Go back and re-read my posts, and let me know what I could possibly have done to make it any clearer what I was talking about.

I don't know how to make it any clearer or more direct than that.

Honestly I would have thought that quoting the post and replying to it would have been more than enough. I've tried repeatedly to answer your question to the best of my ability. Now will you answer a question for me, "clearly and directly": How should I have replied to ponderingturtle's post in such a way that it was clear to you what I was responding to?

 

[phiwum]

I don't know, I think the first step to progressing as a nation is to have everyone come out and just be honest about their attitudes and political beliefs. That sets the stage for great thinkers to come along and try to resolve the disparate and seemingly incompatible tenets of each side. Obviously the racism won't survive that process but it still needs to be represented on the way in.

Great thinkers don't seem to be able to dissuade racists through argument. This is, of course, not intended to say that such arguments shouldn't be had necessarily, but that your prediction seems fantastic.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Belz...]

Jesus wept.

Don't lose hope.

I don't know how to make it any clearer or more direct than that.

Honestly I would have thought that quoting the post and replying to it would have been more than enough. I've tried repeatedly to answer your question to the best of my ability. Now will you answer a question for me, "clearly and directly": How should I have replied to ponderingturtle's post in such a way that it was clear to you what I was responding to?

Aaahhhh.... ok. Somehow reading it for the fourth time did the job this time.

 

[jimbob]

Great thinkers don't seem to be able to dissuade racists through argument. This is, of course, not intended to say that such arguments shouldn't be had necessarily, but that your prediction seems fantastic.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Yes.

Racism is emotional and not based on reason, so I can't see how that would help. People are not islands, they tend to absorb the attitudes around them, so if racists are feeling happy to be vocal about their vile views, then other people are likely to be influenced by them.

Making it so that people are ashamed to espouse racist views in public probably does work. The Kick Racism out of Football campaign probably did a lot for the UK, as it has mostly "denormalised" racism in one large public sphere.


When racists have to pretend that they "are not racist but..." then that is a start.